"Solution to excessive Torpedo use (from land bases)"

[Brady]

spence- el cid, mostly covered any reply that I would of made to you on the points you made. Though I would say in adation that I do have several book on Nells and Bettys specificaly and many others that cover their operations. In short Nells and Bettys were the long range striking power of the IJN, they were all intended to be used as Torpedo strike aircraft and all their crewes were taind to do so acordingly. Late last night I did read throung "the thread" and from what I can see their was only the one instance out of Rabaul, whena they wanted to use torps but could not because they had not arived their yet(torps), from what I recal from I belave "Dull" the Bettys had just arived at rabaul and their transport with the Torps was still a coupl days out. This is the Only instance I am aware of whear this occured with Betty's.

The Langely was sunk by from what I understand Nell's, they were directed to the Langely while in Flight on their way to bomb a Land target. The incedent with the two Kent class CA's in the Indian Ocean was a confused one. In the book "The Empiors sea Eagles" the Lead Val piolet on the strke related in some detail what happened their: In a nut shell the KB was arming up for a strike on Land targets with the Kates, tey were loading 800 KG bomb's and the Vall's of the Authors flight were on standby in case any Naval targets were spoted...A float plane from one of the Crusers Spoted the two Kents, and reported them as DD's...Before The Valls could get going he again reported them as CA's At this time they decided to rearm the Kates with Torps and started to do this...(at this time the Japanese beelaved that they neaded Torps or 500 or 800 kg bombs to defeat a CA or Larger)...then the scout again reported the two ships as DD's and the ream operation was halted and the Vall's sortied to Sink the CA's...As they aproached the Enemy Ship again the Float plane Identified the The Ships as CA's But posatively as Kent Class...The Valls were prety much on top of their target at this point and went in...In a few minutes with like 88% acuacery I beleave 17 Valls sank the Two ships.

All the Planes that could carry torps used different mounts for the different loads they carried, but this is not realy a big deal to switch out, My Japanese books on these planes show in great detail the mounting apratious and honestly it is prety simple, the problem is mounting a 800KG pice of ordance, they gota manuaver it under the plane and hoist it up.

In a perfect world we would have weapon load out options, Torps would be tracked and we could chuse what we wanted to load our planes with. I would love to see 60 KG bombs for the Navy planes, and 50 KG for the Army ones (Japanese), and 100KG and 250, 500, 800, and torps. Basicaly all the load outs you could have. I would use the 60 KG Bombs for Merchant targets, More bombs better hit chance, the larger ones for Warships, and Torps as they were available.

[Ron Saueracker]

Any type of Suply sujestion is realy just puting a pro allied slant on it, the Japanese prety much always had Torps available whear ever they based their Betty/Nel bombers.

Brady

This is totally fanboyism as Demosthenes said! LOL[:D] Brady, shame on you...[;)] Perhaps you should reverse the details of your statement and say "the Japanese pretty much always based their Bettys and Nells where there were torps available". This would mean that certain types of aircraft and loadouts are only available at specific bases, perhaps dependent on size (development), supply (adequate munitions so torps are plentiful so to speak) and are serviced by specialist support units (as was historically the case with all aircraft of all nationalities).

What you are saying is that ordnance of a very specialist nature can be found wherever you may want to base your bombers at any given moment.[:D]

[Brady]

Demosthenes- Not because the Allies have to much Suply, but honestly I think they have to much suply early on to be shure. Thier are many things I feal are slanted to the Allies, this weakend I will make a list of this things and post them, at least my favorate peaves.

Mods- Yes I am prety shure the reasion that so many people are doing mods is beacuse they dont argeee with how the stock games adreasess the many vairables of the war for one reasion or another, then again they designed the game this way, to a point many things that are peaves of mine are hard coded and you cant mode around them.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady





Demosthenes- Not because the Allies have to much Suply, but honestly I think they have to much suply early on to be shure. Thier are many things I feal are slanted to the Allies, this weakend I will make a list of this things and post them, at least my favorate peaves.

Mods- Yes I am prety shure the reasion that so many people are doing mods is beacuse they dont argeee with how the stock games adreasess the many vairables of the war for one reasion or another, then again they designed the game this way, to a point many things that are peaves of mine are hard coded and you cant mode around them.

Perhaps too much supply is available everywhere?[;)] Oh, I don't know maybe it's just moi, but when one designs a game around the imprortance of supply (supply and base size pretty much dictate a massive number of variables) yet basically has supply sprouting up everywhere, perhaps the whole point was lost somewhere?[8D] Might work if SUPPLY WAS SEVERED FROM RESOURCES SO MODDERS CAN FIX THE PROBLEM.[8D]

[Brady]

Ron Saueracker- I am looking to you as an example and have chosen to come out of the closet,as if their were ever any question any way[:)]

My point is that since the Nell's Bettys were intended to be fielded by the IJN to Sink Ship's, Naval Ship's ,and since they were trained to use torps to do so, all of them were, that they are a weapon system, intened to be always equiped with torps, that is their would alyaws be torps availabel to them, or nearly so.

[juliet7bravo]

xxx

[Marc_Mitscher]

I have not played the game enough to see if this is a real problem, although I have not noticed anything unusual in my current game.

Torpedo attacks by land-based japanese planes were quite common. I am currently reading Morison's history of the Gilberts & Marshalls campaigns. The IJN staged many night torpedo attacks by "Bettys". Turner's task force was attacked almost every night during the Gilberts invasion. USS Lexington was torpedoed in december 1943 during a strike on the marshalls and the USS Intrepid was also torpedoed during the strike on Truk in january 1944. This is all anecdotal evidence, but certainly the US navy took the threat of land-based torpedo bombers very seriously.

[mlees]

I'm sorry. I slept last night, and I have forgotten the nature of the gripe.

It seems that the focus on the torpedo may be a red herring...

Is it that land based air (LBA) is deemed to be too deadly to ships, as represented in the game?

Are "hit" rates for these attacks too high?

I'm not sure.

I'm more upset with the fact that my twin engined level bombers insist on attacking battleships with their 250 lb bombs instead of the juicy transports....

I'm more upset with the fact that some squadrons on a base "choose" to fly, and others do not, versus the same target, regardless of the info screen telling me that they have the (undamaged) aircraft, the pilots, the supplies, the same morale, same weather, all looking ok...

In regards to making a load out selectable, I predict that most people would select "torp" when picking Naval Attack, and "bomb" when picking Ground or airfield attack. The only reason why they wouldn't, would be if other restrictions were not met (like base size and supply levels). But then, they merely make sure that their "Betty" base is supplied...

If you restrict torps to base sizes, then players are gonna whine that they are restricted into the same opening moves, basing from the same old bases, every game. *shrug*

Sorry. I probably need a kick in the seat of my pants, but I don't think that the torpedo "problem" is that huge... and I am sure one of you will set me back on the path to enlightenment. [:'(]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Brady


Ron Saueracker- I am looking to you as an example and have chosen to come out of the closet,as if their were ever any question any way[:)]

My point is that since the Nell's Bettys were intended to be fielded by the IJN to Sink Ship's, Naval Ship's ,and since they were trained to use torps to do so, all of them were, that they are a weapon system, intened to be always equiped with torps, that is their would alyaws be torps availabel to them, or nearly so.

So, if I decide to fly Bettys or Beauforts from my arse, should they have torps or bombs or indeed, be flying?[;)] I just can't agree with your black and white statement when there are a load of gray issues in the middle. I say restrict aircraft more, not less.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mlees

I'm sorry. I slept last night, and I have forgotten the nature of the gripe.

It seems that the focus on the torpedo may be a red herring...

Is it that land based air (LBA) is deemed to be too deadly to ships, as represented in the game?

Are "hit" rates for these attacks too high?

I'm not sure.

I'm more upset with the fact that my twin engined level bombers insist on attacking battleships with their 250 lb bombs instead of the juicy transports....

I'm more upset with the fact that some squadrons on a base "choose" to fly, and others do not, versus the same target, regardless of the info screen telling me that they have the (undamaged) aircraft, the pilots, the supplies, the same morale, same weather, all looking ok...

In regards to making a load out selectable, I predict that most people would select "torp" when picking Naval Attack, and "bomb" when picking Ground or airfield attack. The only reason why they wouldn't, would be if other restrictions were not met (like base size and supply levels). But then, they merely make sure that their "Betty" base is supplied...

If you restrict torps to base sizes, then players are gonna whine that they are restricted into the same opening moves, basing from the same old bases, every game. *shrug*
Sorry. I probably need a kick in the seat of my pants, but I don't think that the torpedo "problem" is that huge... and I am sure one of you will set me back on the path to enlightenment. [:'(]

One of the problems having been too lenient with the design is that now people are familiar with and and often make the mistake assuming that the wrong way is actually the right way.
[;)]

Just raise supply thresholds/base sizes/add necessity of specific support and reduce supply availability at resource centres with no manpower and voila. Do the same for a host of replenishment issues like warship ammo.

[spence]

The fact remains that G3s/G4s attacked ships, even capital ships, with bombs far more than they attacked with torpedos (even some of the ones which attacked PoW/Repulse attacked with bombs). They were the LR strike arm of the IJN for sure but torpedos didn't grow on trees and the usage of G3s/G4s in the course of the actual war reflects that in a way that WitP utterly fails to do.

BTW Brady you are correct about the Langley. I did read something, in one of the TROMs for the carriers during the time frame when KB was South of Java, about a torpedo strike cancelled because someone had already sunk the target by the time the torpedo bombers were ready to go with torps.

[juliet7bravo]

"xxx

[bradfordkay]

"Okay, using a strictly supply based option...it'd be true. Later in the war. Early-mid war, I wouldn't want my air units going to certain death carrying a worthless POS USN Mk13 into combat. I also don't see any Japanese players complaining about their shipping getting whacked by Allied anti-shipping strikes using torps from 1500 miles away.

Reality;
- RAAF flew 19 torp missions in all of WW2 (in the Pacific), all using the USN Mk13.
- RAF...I'm sure they flew torps missions in the Pacific, but I've yet to come up with an example
- USAF/USAAC flew 1 torp mission in the Pacific
- Land-based USN/USMC TB's I've yet to find a single torp mission (other than Midway) in the Pacific. I'm sure they did, but obviously it wasn't an everyday affair."



This is why I have been asking for a die roll on torpedo loading similar to the 1000lb bomb roll. This would apply to both sides, and thus make the whole situation more equitable. This is no 'fanboy" request, just a request to make the whole game seem more realistic.


IIRC, there were Avengers using torpedoes out of Henderson Field. I seem to recall that during the big Japanese push of October, the MAG commander's personal PBY brought in torpedoes for the TBMs, only to have to try a torpedo attack on Japanese transports itself since all the TBMs had been put out of action by the previous night's naval bombardment.

[Big B]

Thank you -
and that is why I suggested this in the first place.

An ideal solution would be choice #4 - applied to both torps and heavy bombs, but realistically that's a WitP2 project.

The die roll coding is already there and can be done now.

B

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"Okay, using a strictly supply based option...it'd be true. Later in the war. Early-mid war, I wouldn't want my air units going to certain death carrying a worthless POS USN Mk13 into combat. I also don't see any Japanese players complaining about their shipping getting whacked by Allied anti-shipping strikes using torps from 1500 miles away.

Reality;
- RAAF flew 19 torp missions in all of WW2 (in the Pacific), all using the USN Mk13.
- RAF...I'm sure they flew torps missions in the Pacific, but I've yet to come up with an example
- USAF/USAAC flew 1 torp mission in the Pacific
- Land-based USN/USMC TB's I've yet to find a single torp mission (other than Midway) in the Pacific. I'm sure they did, but obviously it wasn't an everyday affair."



This is why I have been asking for a die roll on torpedo loading similar to the 1000lb bomb roll. This would apply to both sides, and thus make the whole situation more equitable. This is no 'fanboy" request, just a request to make the whole game seem more realistic.


IIRC, there were Avengers using torpedoes out of Henderson Field. I seem to recall that during the big Japanese push of October, the MAG commander's personal PBY brought in torpedoes for the TBMs, only to have to try a torpedo attack on Japanese transports itself since all the TBMs had been put out of action by the previous night's naval bombardment.

[mlees]

Reality;
- RAAF flew 19 torp missions in all of WW2 (in the Pacific), all using the USN Mk13.
- RAF...I'm sure they flew torps missions in the Pacific, but I've yet to come up with an example
- USAF/USAAC flew 1 torp mission in the Pacific
- Land-based USN/USMC TB's I've yet to find a single torp mission (other than Midway) in the Pacific. I'm sure they did, but obviously it wasn't an everyday affair.
- Few of the AC conducting torp missions in WitP every flew an actual torp mission. An example would be the RAAF Beaufighters. Major reasons being the USN torps were so crappy, and by the time (some of) the bugs were worked out there was better techniques/weapons for anti-shipping strikes than flying straight at the enemy, at stalling speed, 100' off the water.

I seem to recall stories of catalina's using torps in night attacks. Was this late war?

How about the B-24's based out of China, and using radar to locate convoys. Bombs were the weapons? (This is an honest question. I really don't know...)

All you are looking at is the use of torps, and basing availablility opinions on that. But what would be harder to figure out, is how many historical anti-shipping patrols or strike sorties were flown, where the ordinance was not expended. This number would bump the perception of availability upwards, slightly, I think.

I think that j7b has it right. The higher-than-real-life pace of the game (in terms of aircraft repair, ship usage, supply production, etc.) is what makes the hordes of air planes and number of air strikes seem out of whack.

Even if you made the supply requirement at the torp bomber base 50,000, players are going to ensure that that level of supply is available, hence the desired effect of slowing things down won't happen.

I assume slowing things down is the goal. I suggest that even if you restricted the Japanese from using torps, ships will still get sunk because the Allied player still insists on running them through IJ air-dominated areas.

I suggest that someone set up a test game. Use the editor to remove the torp from the Betties and Beauforts. Use Multiengine aircraft only from bases that have a minimum suplly level (house ruling yourselves). See if these changes have results that you expect...

[juliet7bravo]

[xxx

[spence]

I'll look there closer. Know they did, but it obviously wasn't their standard load-out. Most Allied LB TB attacks seem to have been either ASW patrol or island/port bombing. GC an early war anomaly...how often were both sides running shipping (big enough to rate a torp) into the same island, and duking it out over a location at knife fighting range? If a suitable target is in range, and they had the torp, they'd use it, same as the Japanese.

Almost certain that both Marine and Navy TBFs took a crack at HIJMS HIEI, 13 Nov 1942, off Guadalcanal. Even got a couple of hits I think. Only case I can recall though.

[mogami]

"As early as Midway. And I never had a single PBY torp attack in-game, day or night"

Hi, I have hit at least 2 IJN CV with PBY torpedo attacks.

To get PBY to attack assign a bomber leader not a patrol leader. Don't use too much of group on patrol (use another group) And of course the Japanese have to comply and enter into the range you've selected (9 for torpedo attack)

[mlees]

It also highlites the Nell/Betty torp issue. Is open ocean 1500 miles away an "IJ air-dominated area"?

In that case, I blame the high success rate of the naval-air search function. Does this need to be tweaked down a hair?

Anyway, I had in mind the DEI, with the allied player running in ships to put supplies into Singapore/Manila, or pull LCU kernel's out. (In early '41.) In real life, that was risky. But the player does it anyway because his sailors are only electronic bits.

But I get the point again:

No, the goal (should be) using historical capabilities in realistic ways.

I applaud any effort in this direction, but I also worry about the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction...

[juliet7bravo]

xxx